Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions as Admitted
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 21, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-011679 - BAUSER, TIMOTHY vs GREEN, MATTHEW MILTON - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions - DROPPED. Pursuant to the notice of withdrawal filed on July 16, 2026, the hearing on this motion is DROPPED.
CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Partition Action for Lack of Jurisdiction - DENIED. The motion to dismiss--which appears to be a reiteration of a prior motion to dismiss that was heard on June 11, 2026--is again DENIED as procedurally defective. As Plaintiff states in her opposition to the motion, "... California law does not authorize dismissal of a complaint through a freestanding motion to dismiss based upon the grounds asserted in Defendant's motion. Rather, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides specific procedural mechanisms for challenging a pleading, each governed by its own statutory requirements." (Opp., at p. 3.) Such procedural mechanisms include a demurrer, a motion to strike, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Alternatively, a party may file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.
Plaintiff has requested that the Court sanction Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128.7 or any other applicable statute. That request is DENIED at this time; a motion for sanctions under Sec. 128.7 must strictly comply with certain procedural requirements, including that the motion must be made separately from any other motion and must provide a safe-harbor period. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7(c)(1).) However, Defendant should consider himself on notice that any failure to heed Court advisements and the repeated filing of motions making the same arguments may result in monetary sanctions in the future.
PR-23-000289 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records or, in the Alternative, to Modify or Limit the Subpoena, and for Monetary Sanctions Against Petitioner, Angela Estacio and her Counsel of Record, Rebecca H. Sem - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. This matter is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the continued motion for consolidation on calendar that day.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-000613 - LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III - a) Defendant's Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medial Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendants Dunhouse & Citizens Medical Response's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - HEARING REQUIRED. a-d) HEARING REQUIRED. Defense counsel shall appear to demonstrate compliance with the Court's 5-29-26 order.
CV-25-011776 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs FREAR, ALYSSA D - Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions as Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
CV-25-011430 - CHAVEZ, KARINA vs CHAVEZ, RAMIRO - Defendants Ramiro Chavez et al.'s Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Based on the arguments set forth in the moving papers, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the claims suggested therein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e).) In addition, the Court finds that much of the pleading is unintelligible as to the facts and theories alleged, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Ca. Rules of Ct., rule 2.112 in that regard, rendering the Complaint uncertain. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 430.10(f).) The Court further notes that Plaintiff's untimely opposition fails to substantively address the defendants' legal arguments herein. Lastly, the Court notes that a substantial portion of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to arise from matters that have been addressed in a pre-existing family law action (#FL21-2757), raising serious questions about this Court's jurisdiction to address such claims. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-22-005038 - COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs SHAIBI, YEHIA AHMED QASSEM - a) Plaintiff County of Stanislaus's Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1260.040 for Determination of Legal Issues Regarding Defendant Lion's Market's Entitlement to Claim Loss of Business Goodwill - GRANTED. b) Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Lion's Market and/or its Counsel - a) GRANTED. A business owner is entitled to a jury trial on the amount of goodwill lost by a taking only if he or she first establishes, as a threshold matter, that the business had goodwill to lose.
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Dry Canyon Enterprises, LLC (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 486, 491; City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Coyne (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1515, 1522-1523. Whether the qualifying conditions for compensation for loss of goodwill in eminent domain proceedings have been met is a matter for the trial court to resolve, and only if the court finds these conditions exist does the remaining issue of the value of the goodwill loss, if any, go to the jury. City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.
Coyne, supra; City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 576, 594-595. Code of Civil Procedure section 1260.040 authorizes determination of legal and evidentiary issues affecting compensation before trial, including goodwill entitlement issues. Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 856, 862 fn.
6.
The Court finds that Defendant Lion's Market has failed to establish entitlement to compensation for loss of business goodwill under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Defendant is precluded from asserting or presenting evidence in support of a claim for loss of business goodwill in this action. Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1258.280.
b) GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Terminating sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process, including failure to respond to discovery and disobedience of court orders. CCP Sec.Sec. 2023.010 (d) and (g) & 2023.030. Lion's Market is guilty of violating both sections and therefore prima facie, the court may impose terminating sanctions. However, discovery sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort. Terminating sanctions for discovery abuses are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.”Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal App 5th 154,